The New York Times obviously didn't think twice about purchasing the hastag #NYTimesNews on Twitter, and in the process showed a new, high level of Social Media idiocy. As of this writing the vast majority of Twitter tweets are in protest of the New York Times plan for an online digital subscription process, with many tweets explaining that once the free 20 articles offered is done, that's it.
No paywall money for the New York Times.
But what gets this blogger is why the NY Times would be stupid enough to use Twitter for such an announcement? Buying that hashtag, thus insuring top Twitter Trend placement, was a direct route to criticism and hammering on Twitter. It's like PR suicide: the Times of New York serving itself up for lunch, to be eaten over and over again.
Yuck.
Check out some of these Twitter tweets:
Yes, $15 is a price per month that gives a number of people pause. That's a week's bus ride money for a lot of people. To charge that much is sheer arrogance, not to mention complete stupidity. (Of course, the two tend to go together.)
In "A Letter to Our Readers About Digital Subscriptions," issued on this St. Patrick's Day, and leading this blogger to wonder how much drink was already consumed at the New York Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the NY Times Publisher (and hater of this blogger's constant jabs at his new media efforts and particularly his fear of Google - word travels) writes:
HA! Dump it on Canada first! Nice. I'm sure the Canadians will appreciate being used in such a direct way. So, if the paywall doesn't work, look for Mr. Sulzberger to blame Canada!
Really, he should blame himself. Whatever online good press the NY Times could have gotten was dashed by thousands of Twitterers, nastily tweeting about its paywall effort.
I'm reminded of my conversation with Salon's Scott Rosenberg, where he explains that journalists are just trying to pay the rent or mortgage. I know, but this paywall isn't the way to go about it.
Follow Zennie62 on Twitter for re-tweets on this.
No paywall money for the New York Times.
But what gets this blogger is why the NY Times would be stupid enough to use Twitter for such an announcement? Buying that hashtag, thus insuring top Twitter Trend placement, was a direct route to criticism and hammering on Twitter. It's like PR suicide: the Times of New York serving itself up for lunch, to be eaten over and over again.
Yuck.
Check out some of these Twitter tweets:
Phitter Japhet
Interesting how #NYTimesNews has triggered larger discussion about value of journalism instead of attracting new subscribers. #CartB4Horse
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply
Paul_Conrad Paul Conrad
My suggestion to #NYTimesNews, don't punish your loyal readers with a subscription fee when you're giving your stuff to Facebook for free.
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply
jbrianhouston J Brian Houston
NYTimes porous paywall: Won't generate much $, so maybe just a "we must be paid" statement? http://bit.ly/hOMpbd #NYTimesNews
hirshsandesara hirshsandesara
@brianschwab time to become intimately familiar with the @newsobserver. This blows. #NYTimesNews
3 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
jerseyblueboy Karim Walker
#NYTimesNews will lose a lot of long time readers because of this new subscription plan.
4 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
Esotericus J. Leif Johnson
$15 is too much for #NYTimesNews when you can get news for free elsewhere. Five dollars is reasonable, but not $15.
5 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
Yes, $15 is a price per month that gives a number of people pause. That's a week's bus ride money for a lot of people. To charge that much is sheer arrogance, not to mention complete stupidity. (Of course, the two tend to go together.)
In "A Letter to Our Readers About Digital Subscriptions," issued on this St. Patrick's Day, and leading this blogger to wonder how much drink was already consumed at the New York Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the NY Times Publisher (and hater of this blogger's constant jabs at his new media efforts and particularly his fear of Google - word travels) writes:
This change comes in two stages. Today, we are rolling out digital subscriptions to our readers in Canada, which will enable us to fine-tune the customer experience before our global launch. On March 28, we will begin offering digital subscriptions in the United States and the rest of the world.
HA! Dump it on Canada first! Nice. I'm sure the Canadians will appreciate being used in such a direct way. So, if the paywall doesn't work, look for Mr. Sulzberger to blame Canada!
Really, he should blame himself. Whatever online good press the NY Times could have gotten was dashed by thousands of Twitterers, nastily tweeting about its paywall effort.
I'm reminded of my conversation with Salon's Scott Rosenberg, where he explains that journalists are just trying to pay the rent or mortgage. I know, but this paywall isn't the way to go about it.
Follow Zennie62 on Twitter for re-tweets on this.
You're just like the rest of them: Expecting good quality journalism to just fall off trees. #Realitycheck it costs real money to produce the type of content the NYTimes does. Kudos to them for forcing people to deal with reality. Sad that this generation is so spoiled that they can't see how badly we need the NYT to stick around.
ReplyDelete#Realitycheck we don't need the NYT to stick around. Sorry. We've got The Huffington Post.
ReplyDelete